Volume 86

Page 88

June 2015

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

BOARD OF EDUCATION

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

MINUTES

June 25, 2015

The Board of Education met at the James Monroe State Office Building, Jefferson

Conference Room, 22nd

Floor, Richmond, with the following members present:

Mr. Christian N. Braunlich, President Mrs. Darla Edwards

Dr. Billy K. Cannaday, Jr., Vice President Mrs. Elizabeth Lodal

Mrs. Diane T. Atkinson Mr. Sal Romero, Jr.

Dr. Oktay Baysal Mrs. Joan Wodiska

Mr. James H. Dillard

Dr. Steven R. Staples, Superintendent of

Public Instruction

Mr. Braunlich called the meeting to order at 9 a.m.

MOMENT OF SILENCE/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr. Braunlich asked for a moment of silence and led in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Dr. Baysal made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 28, 2015, meeting of Board.

The motion was seconded by Mrs. Atkinson and carried unanimously. Copies of the minutes had

been distributed in advance of the meeting.

RESOLUTIONS/RECOGNITIONS

A Resolution of Recognition was presented to Virginia’s National Distinguished Principal:

Mrs. Pamela R. Johnson, Principal, Falling Creek Elementary School, Chesterfield County

Public Schools.

A Resolution of Recognition was presented to Virginia’s National Outstanding Assistant

Principal: Mrs. Kelly T. Nickerson, Assistant Principal, Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary

School, Prince William County Public Schools.

A Resolution of Recognition was presented to the Class of 2015 and Organizations Assisting the

Board of Education in the Successful Implementation of the Economics and Personal Finance

Diploma Requirement. The following individuals attended to represent some of the

organizations: David Bass, Virginia Society of Certified Public Accountants; Tom Garner,

Volume 86

Page 89

June 2015

Virginia Bankers Association; Cherry Hedges, Virginia Credit Union, Virginia Credit Union

League and Virginia JumpStart Coalition; Kris Moore, Bayport Credit Union; Sarah Finley,

Virginia Council on Economic Education; and Eric Kauders, Jr., Virginia Council on Economic

Education.

A Resolution of Appreciation for Outstanding Leadership and Service to Public Education

was presented to Mr. Christian N. Braunlich, Virginia Board of Education Member, 2011-

2015 and President, 2014-2015.

Secretary of Education Anne Holton and Board members expressed their appreciation to Mr.

Braunlich. Mr. Braunlich thanked Board members and identified individual experiences that

each member brings to the Board. Mr. Braunlich also thanked staff of the Department of

Education for their hard work and dedication to serving the children of Virginia.

Mr. Braunlich recognized Dr. Lorraine Lange, newly appointed Board member whose term

begins July 1, 2015.

PUBLIC COMMENT

The following persons spoke during public comment:

Dawn Shelly, spoke on testing of students with disabilities

Eric Terry, spoke on public schools opening prior to Labor day

CONSENT AGENDA

Mrs. Wodiska made a motion to approve the consent agenda. The motion was seconded

by Mrs. Atkinson and carried unanimously.

Final Review of the Advisory Board on Teacher Education and Licensure’s Recommendation to

Grant Approval to Add New Education (Endorsement) Programs at George Mason University

With the Board’s approval of the consent agenda, the Board approved the Advisory Board

on Teacher Education and Licensure’s recommendation to grant approval to add new education

(endorsement) graduate programs in Music Education-Vocal/Choral PreK-12 and Music

Education-Instrumental PreK-12 at George Mason University, including the accountability

measurement of partnerships and collaborations based on PreK-12 school needs.

Final Review of 2015-2017 Addendum to the Educational Technology Plan for Virginia: 2010-

2015

With the Board’s approval of the consent agenda, the Board approved the proposed two-

year addendum to the current Educational Technology Plan for Virginia: 2010 - 2015.

Volume 86

Page 90

June 2015

Final Review of Revisions to the Licensure Regulations for School Personnel (8 VAC 20-22-10

et seq.) to Conform to General Assembly Legislation (Exempt Action)

With the Board’s approval of the consent agenda, the Board approved the proposed

amendments to the Licensure Regulations for School Personnel (Exempt Action) and authorized

the Department of Education staff to proceed with the requirements of the Administrative Process

Act.

ACTION/DISCUSSION ITEMS

First Review of Request for Approval of an Innovative Program Opening Prior to Labor Day

from Manassas Park City Public Schools

Dr. Cynthia Cave, assistant superintendent for policy and communications, presented this

item. Representatives from Manassas Park City Public Schools were Dr. C. Bruce McDade,

superintendent, and Eric Neff, deputy superintendent. Dr. Cave’s presentation included the

following:

Manassas Park City Public Schools (MPCPS) is requesting a waiver of the requirement that its school year

begin after Labor Day, pursuant to § 22.1-79.1 of the Code of Virginia.

Section 22.1-79.1 of the Code of Virginia prohibits local school boards from adopting school calendars that

require schools to open prior to Labor Day unless a waiver is granted by the Board for "good cause." The

conditions under which the Board may grant such waivers are outlined in the Code. The provision that permits

the Board to approve a waiver for an experimental or innovative program may be found in §22.1-79.1 as

follows:

§ 22.1-79.1. Opening of the school year; approvals for certain alternative schedules.

A. Each local school board shall set the school calendar so that the first day students are required to attend school

shall be after Labor Day. The Board of Education may waive this requirement based on a school board

certifying that it meets one of the good cause requirements of subsection B.

B. For purposes of this section, "good cause" means:

1. A school division has been closed an average of eight days per year during any five of the last 10 years

because of severe weather conditions, energy shortages, power failures, or other emergency situations;

2. A school division is providing, in the school year for which the waiver is sought, an instructional program or

programs in one or more of its elementary or middle or high schools, excluding Virtual Virginia, which are

dependent on and provided in one or more elementary or middle or high schools of another school division

that qualifies for such waiver. However, any waiver granted by the Board of Education pursuant to this

subdivision shall only apply to the opening date for those schools where such dependent programs are

provided;

3. A school division is providing its students, in the school year for which the waiver is sought, with an

experimental or innovative program which requires an earlier opening date than that established in subsection

A of this section and which has been approved by the Department of Education pursuant to the regulations of

the Board of Education establishing standards for accrediting public schools. However, any waiver or

extension of the school year granted by the Board of Education pursuant to this subdivision or its standards for

accrediting public schools for such an experimental or innovative program shall only apply to the opening date

for those schools where such experimental or innovative programs are offered generally to the student body of

the school. For the purposes of this subdivision, experimental or innovative programs shall include

instructional programs that are offered on a year-round basis by the school division in one or more of its

elementary or middle or high schools; or

Volume 86

Page 91

June 2015

4. A school division is entirely surrounded by a school division that has an opening date prior to Labor Day in the

school year for which the waiver is sought. Such school division may open schools on the same opening date

as the surrounding school division….

In addition, Item 136.A.17 of the 2014 Appropriation Act provides as follows:

For the 2014-2015 school year, 43 school divisions have a waiver for weather-related reasons, five have

dependent programs, five are entirely surrounded by a school division that has an opening date prior to

Labor Day, 17 have waivers granted through Item 136 of the Appropriation Act, and three school divisions

have waivers for innovative or experimental programs.

The 2014 General Assembly included state funding for planning grants in the 2014 Appropriation Act to

assist interested school divisions in planning for the establishment of year-round school programs. During

the 2014 Special Session I, $613,312 were included for both fiscal year 2015 and 2016 for planning grants

of no more than $50,000 each for school divisions pursuing the creation of new year-round school programs

for divisions or individual schools in support of the findings from the 2012 Joint Legislative Audit and

Review Commission (JLARC) report, Review of Year-Round Schools, which was issued in October 2012.

(See Item 135.R. of the 2014 Appropriation Act.) The 2012 JLARC report found that Standards of

Learning (SOL) test scores of certain student groups, in particular black students, were more likely to

increase at a faster rate at year-round schools over the nine-year period from 2001 to 2009 (Chapter 2). In

addition, in the report it was suggested that certain school divisions, particularly those with high percentages

of student groups that appear to benefit from year-round schools, may want to consider implementing year-

round calendars as a method to improve student performance (Chapter 6).

MPCPS received a $50,000 year-round school planning grant for the 2014-2015 school year to support the

development of new year-round programs. The school division is composed of four schools: Cougar

Elementary School, Manassas Park Elementary School, Manassas Park Middle School, and Manassas Park

High School. MPCPS has about 3,200 students with a racial/ethnic breakdown as follows:

Race/Ethnicity City Schools

White 40.3% 27%

Black 14.8% 11%

Hispanic 34.6% 49%

Asian 9.2% 7%

The three subgroups of concern include the socio-economically disadvantaged, English Language Learners

(ELLs), and special education. The largest of these groups, the socio-economically disadvantaged, is

approximately 60 percent of the student population based on Free and Reduced Meal Eligibility applications.

In addition, MPCPS has 33 percent of its student population receiving ELL services at Level 1 or Level 2

and 12 percent of the student population is identified as receiving special education.

The plan is to begin instruction for the 2015-2016 school year on August 17, 2015. This plan is modeled on

one similar to the plan used by another Virginia school division and will include two one-week intersessions.

When school ends in June, students will have a two-week break before summer school begins. Summer

school will operate for three weeks and then students will have three weeks off before the new school year

begins. Many of the students who attend summer school fall within one of the three subgroups of concern.

The calendar was designed by a team of educators from the four schools, transportation, and central office.

Numerous modifications were made based on feedback from stakeholders. The calendar for the school

To provide additional flexibility, notwithstanding the provisions of § 22.1-79.1 of the Code of Virginia, any school division

that was granted a waiver regarding the opening date of the school year for the 2011-12 school year under the good cause

requirements shall continue to be granted a waiver for the 2014-15 school year and the 2015-2016 school year.

Volume 86

Page 92

June 2015

division will provide two weeks of intersession which will include intense remediation and enrichment for

the students. The first week of intersession will follow the end of the first nine weeks. This time frame will

allow for targeted interventions for those students who struggled with the foundational concepts needed to

be successful the remainder of the school year. Enrichment opportunities will include college visits,

business internships, SAT and AP test preparation, and educational field trips. The Pre-Labor Day start will

provide an additional two weeks of instruction for students in AP classes. All students in the school division

will participate in this calendar.

MPCPS would like to realize improvements in sub-group-SOL test scores and ELL proficiency. However,

providing remediation to students after school and on Saturdays has not produced the desired results.

MPCPS believes that the balanced schedule will improve the pacing of the curriculum, thus improving

student understanding and knowledge retention. Targeted intersessions will further bolster student

understanding and increased language proficiency and comprehension.

Currently all schools in MPCPS are fully accredited.

Mr. Braunlich clarified the need to provide maximum time for Manassas Park City Public

Schools to prepare to begin instruction for the 2015-2016 school year on August 17, 2015.

Dr. Cannaday made a motion to waive first review and approve the request from Manassas

Park City Public Schools for an innovative program opening prior to Labor Day, pursuant to the

provisions of §.22.1-79.1 of the Code of Virginia. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Wodiska

and carried with 8 “yes” votes. Mrs. Atkinson recused herself from discussion and voting on this

item.

Final Review of Proposal to Enact Special Provision in the Regulations Establishing Standards

for Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia (8 VAC 20-131-280E) Related to Use of Test Scores

in Calculating Accreditation Ratings Effective with the 2015-2016 School Year

Dr. Cynthia Cave also presented this item. Dr. Cave’s presentation included the following:

The 2014 Acts of Assembly eliminated the following Standards of Learning (SOL) assessments: Grade 3

Science, Grade 3 History, Grade 5 Writing, United States History to 1865 and United States History:1865 to

the Present. School divisions have expressed concern about the impact their elimination will have on the

accreditation ratings for 2015-2016. While the Board is considering changes to the Regulations Establishing

Standards for Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia (SOA) that would recognize improvements in the pass

rates for schools as well as student growth, these new ratings will not be available for the 2015-2016

accreditation cycle. This means that while the accreditation ratings have not changed, the number of tests

used to calculate the ratings has changed considerably.

The Board does have the authority under the Regulations Establishing Standards for Accrediting Public

Schools in Virginia (SOA) to alter the inclusions and exclusions from the accreditation calculations by

providing adequate notice to local school boards.

The Regulations Establishing Standards for Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia (8VAC20-131-280E) provide

the following authority:

The Board of Education may adopt special provisions related to the administration and use of any Virginia

assessment program test in a content area. The Board of Education may adopt special provisions related to the

administration and use of the graduation and completion index, as prescribed by the board. The Board of Education

may also alter the inclusions and exclusions from the accreditation calculations by providing adequate notice to

Volume 86

Page 93

June 2015

local school boards. The board may add new tests or discontinue the use of existing tests in the Virginia

Assessment Program by providing adequate notice to local school boards.

Based on the SOA requirements, currently schools are accredited primarily on the percentage of students

passing the Virginia assessment program tests in the four core academic areas administered in the school.

The accreditation ratings are based on a trailing three-year average that includes the current year scores and

the scores from the two most recent years in each applicable academic area, or on the current year's scores,

whichever is higher. In order to ameliorate the impact of the SOL tests eliminated by the 2014 Acts of the

Assembly, the Board is asked to consider using a four-year average in calculating the accreditation pass rates

for those areas in which SOL tests have been eliminated: English, science and history/social science for

elementary schools and history/social science for middle schools. This change would provide an additional

year in which the eliminated tests are included in the accreditation calculations and would be applicable to

the accreditation ratings only until new accreditation ratings are approved by the Board.

Mrs. Atkinson made a motion to approve the proposal to use a four-year average in

addition to the three-year average and the current year average in those areas in which SOL tests

have been eliminated: English, science and history/social science for elementary schools and

history/social science for middle schools effective with the accreditation ratings for the 2015-

2016 school year and continuing until such time as new accreditation ratings are effective. The

motion was seconded by Mr. Dillard and carried unanimously.

Final Review of Report on Virginia’s Possible Participation in the 2018 Administration of the

Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) as an Independent Educational System

in Accordance with the 2015 Appropriation Act

Dr. Cynthia Cave also presented this item. Dr. Cave’s presentation included the following:

The 2015 Appropriation Act directed the Board of Education and the Secretary of Education to investigate

the benefits and costs of Virginia participating in the 2018 Administration of the Program for International

Student Assessment (PISA) as a “country” so that Virginia-specific results could be obtained.

Item 127, Paragraph F. of the 2015 Appropriation Act contains the following requirement:

“The Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Board of Education, shall review, assess the value

and cost of obtaining state-level results from the Program for International Student Assessment. The

Secretary shall report the findings to the Chairmen of House Appropriations and Senate Finance

Committees no later than July 15, 2015.”

Should Virginia not participate as an independent educational system in the 2018 PISA, Virginia students

will be included in the sample for the United States but results specific to the performance of Virginia

students will not be available. A presentation about PISA that was provided to the Board in 2013.

Since this item was on first review in May 2015, additional information on the following topics has been

added: 1) interest of the business community and policymakers in obtaining an international benchmark for

the achievement of Virginia students. 2) possible funding sources to cover the cost of Virginia’s

participation as an independent educational system, and 3) cost information for the 2015 administration of

PISA.

The discussion included:

Mrs. Lodal noted that three states are treated as a nation and asked how valuable this

has been to them. Dr. Sarah Susbury, director of test administration, scoring and

Volume 86

Page 94

June 2015

reporting, Division of Student Assessment and School Improvement, responded that

staff does not have that information.

Mrs. Atkinson said it is a disadvantage not having information on how Virginia

students rank with other countries and hopes the General Assembly will provide

adequate funding for Virginia to participate as a country.

Mr. Braunlich asked if results from PISA are disaggregated by income. Dr. Susbury

said participation in PISA as an independent educational system requires a minimum

sample of 50 schools and 1,500 students and larger sample sizes of approximately

4,500 students are required to get additional breakouts of information.

Dr. Staples clarified that this is an international comparison and Virginia’s perspective

of what subgroups look like is not always comparable to international comparisons.

Dr. Staples said staff should be able to disaggregate data that is available.

Dr. Cannaday asked about the selection of students in international countries. Dr. Cave

responded that a sample of students is selected the day of the test. Dr. Staples said the

selection process is the same but it is not guaranteed that the manner that children

arrive at school in other countries is the same as the United States.

Mr. Romero asked about the criteria involved as to which students are eligible to take

the test. Dr. Susbury said it is a random sample of the enrollment at the school for that

year.

Mrs. Lodal asked if the Board could partner with the Chamber of Commerce along

with other businesses to pay for the exam.

Mrs. Wodiska noted that students with disabilities is not included in PISA and asked

staff to research this for more information

Dr. Baysal made a motion to approve the report on Virginia’s possible participation as an

independent educational system in the 2018 administration of the PISA. The motion was

seconded by Mrs. Lodal and carried unanimously.

The report is as follows:

Report on Virginia’s Potential Participation in the Program for International Student Assessment as an

Independent Educational System in 2018

Background

In the past several years there has been considerable interest in obtaining information about how the achievement of

Virginia students compares to that of their peers in other countries. One way to obtain such information is for

Virginia to participate as an independent educational agency in in the 2018 Administration of the Program of

International Student Assessments (PISA so that Virginia-specific results may be obtained. PISA is the largest

international education study in the world and is comprised of a set of tests administered to students 15 years of age

The 2015 Appropriation Act directed the Board of Education and the Secretary of Education to investigate the

benefits and costs of Virginia participating in the 2018 administration of the Program of International Student

Assessments (PISA) as a “country” so that Virginia-specific results could be obtained.

Item 127, Paragraph F. of the 2015 Appropriation Act contains the following requirement:

“The Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Board of Education, shall review and assess the value and cost

of obtaining state-level results from the Program for International Student Assessment. The Secretary shall report

the findings to the Chairmen of House Appropriations and Senate Finance Committees no later than July 15, 2015.”

Volume 86

Page 95

June 2015

Additional information about PISA and the potential advantages and disadvantages of Virginia’s participation as an

independent educational system in the 2018 administration of PISA is provided in the remainder of this report.

Should Virginia not participate as an independent educational system in the 2018 PISA, Virginia students will be

included in the sample for the United States but results specific to the performance of Virginia students will not be

available.

Overview of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)

PISA, the largest international education study in the world, is a set of tests administered to students 15 years of age.

PISA measures student performance in mathematics, reading, and science literacy. Conducted every three years, each

PISA data cycle assesses one of the three core subject areas in depth (considered the major domain), although all

three core subjects are assessed in each cycle. The other two subjects are considered minor subject areas for that

assessment year. Assessing all three subjects every three years allows countries to have a consistent source of

achievement data in each of the three subjects while rotating one area as the primary focus over the years. In 2018,

the next year of administration for PISA, reading will be the subject area of focus. It is expected that PISA will be

administered in October-November 2018, and results will be reported at the state level in December 2019. Results

are not reported at the division, school or student level.

States can participate in PISA as independent educational systems. If Virginia chooses to participate as an

educational system, results for Virginia students will be reported relative to other states and to the United States

overall as well as to other participating countries. Participation in 2018 PISA administration requires a commitment

by March 2016. Participants must have the technical expertise necessary to administer an international online

assessment and must be able to meet the full costs of participation.

Advantages of Virginia’s Participation in PISA as an Independent Educational System

Results would provide a comparison of Virginia students’ learning in reading, mathematics, and science to

that of students in other countries, as well as a comparison to the performance of students in other states that

choose to participate and to the United States overall. Subgroup performance comparisons will be reported

if the sample is large enough to be statistically significant for gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic

status.

Members of the business community and policymakers have expressed considerable interest in how Virginia

students compare to those in other countries.

Participation is age-based rather than grade level or course so the results would provide a measure of the

cumulative learning outcomes of Virginia students rather than attainment of a specific curriculum.

PISA focuses on literacy or the use of mathematics in real-world situations. All problems are context-based

and would provide information about Virginia students’ application of skills in contexts that are likely to be

new for students.

PISA is the only international assessment that offers an international comparison of students in the United

States at the high school level. If Virginia participates as an independent educational system, state results

relative to international results will be reported.

Disadvantages of Virginia’s Participation in PISA as an Independent Educational System

Participation in PISA as an independent educational system requires a minimum sample of 50 schools and

1500 students. However, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the organization

responsible for PISA, recommends larger sample sizes of approximately 4,500 students in order to get finer-

grained breakouts.

Funds must be appropriated for participation. The cost for participating in PISA 2015 was about $630,000.

A final cost estimate will be available once the national contractual agreement is in place and the final

design for 2018 has been established. This information should be available toward the end of 2015 or in

early 2016.

PISA requires approximately 3 hours to administer and does not replace other required tests. As described

above, at least 1500 students in a minimum of 50 schools must be tested so the impact on schools and

divisions would be considerable.

Results are not reported until a full year after the assessment is administered and are not reported at the

division, school, or student level.

Volume 86

Page 96

June 2015

Students are informed of their selection to participate ON assessment day, and their participation is

voluntary. Since student participation is voluntary, Virginia’s participation could be nullified (not reported)

if less than 80% of those sampled participate.

A percentage of the sample of tested students from each school will be required to respond to a 20 to 30

minute questionnaire providing information about themselves, their attitudes to learning, and their homes.

Questions might include parent occupation, the highest level of parent education, and an index of home

possessions related to family wealth and home educational resources. Some parents may object to the

content of these questions.

Next Steps

Participation in the 2018 administration of PISA would require a commitment by March 2016. While existing funds

are not available to cover the costs of Virginia’s participation in PISA, because of the considerable interest in an

international achievement measure for Virginia’s students, the business community and educational foundations

could be approached as potential funding sources. If this strategy were not successful, a budget initiative might be

needed.

Final Review of Criteria for Awarding the Seal of Biliteracy

Dr. Lisa Harris, specialist for Foreign Languages, presented this item. Dr. Harris’ presentation

included the following:

The proposed guidance has been amended since the time of first review to include two adjustments to

recommended testing level equivalencies. They are as follows:

A change in the level of accepted score on assessments authorized through the Common European

Framework of Reference for Languages from A2 to B1; and

A change in the level of accepted score on the American Sign Language Proficiency Interview (ASLPI)

from 2.0 to 3.0.

Both of these changes were made following input from language experts to more closely align the minimum

accepted score for these assessments to the base proficiency level of Intermediate-Mid on the American

Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) proficiency scale.

In addition, following the recommendation of language experts in American Sign Language (ASL), the Sign

Language Proficiency Interview (SLPI:ASL) was added as acceptable evidence of proficiency with a score

of intermediate or higher. This assessment is separate from and scored differently from the ASLPI already

included in the list of acceptable evidence.

The section called Additional Recommendations was stricken as regulations already give localities options

for the transcript format and content.

The committee reached consensus as follows on guidelines for implementing the Seal of Biliteracy in

Virginia:

Students should demonstrate proficiency in English by meeting state high school graduation

requirements in English.

Students should demonstrate proficiency in a world language other than English through one of a range

of approved language assessment options, including Advanced Placement (AP), International

Baccalaureate (IB), and other national or international assessments at a level comparable to Intermediate

Mid on the ACTFL Proficiency Scale.

A list of approved assessments and target levels for the Seal should be approved by the Superintendent

of Public Instruction and be published by the Virginia Department of Education.

School divisions should include a notation on the student’s official high school transcripts indicating

attainment of the Seal of Biliteracy.

Volume 86

Page 97

June 2015

The discussion included:

Mr. Braunlich noted that a private school in northern Virginia has requested

information on this agenda item.

Mrs. Lodal made a motion to approve the proposed criteria for awarding the Seal of

Biliteracy. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dillard and carried unanimously.

The criteria are as follows:

The Board of Education’s Seal of Biliteracy certifies attainment of a high level of proficiency by a

graduating high school student in one or more languages in addition to English, and certifies that the

graduate meets all of the following criteria:

a) The Board of Education’s Seal of Biliteracy will be awarded to students who earn either a Board of

Education-approved diploma and (i) pass all required End-of-Course Assessments in English reading

and writing at the proficient or higher level; and (ii) be proficient at the intermediate-mid level or higher

in one or more languages other than English, as demonstrated through an assessment from a list to be

approved by the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

b) For purposes of this article, "foreign language" means a language other than English, and includes

American Sign Language.

First Review of Proposed Amendments to the Regulations Establishing the Standards for

Accrediting Public School in Virginia (8 VAC 201-131) to Comport with Legislation Passed by

the General Assembly under the Fast Track Provisions of the Administrative Process Act

Dr. Cynthia Cave presented this item. Dr. Cave’s presentation included the following:

Section 22.1-253.13:3 of the Code of Virginia provides, in part:

The Board of Education shall promulgate regulations establishing standards for accreditation pursuant to the Administrative

Process Act (§ 2.2-4000 et seq.), which shall include, but not be limited to, student outcome measures, requirements, and

guidelines for instructional programs and for the integration of educational technology into such instructional programs,

administrative and instructional staffing levels and positions, including staff positions for supporting educational technology,

student services, auxiliary education programs such as library and media services, course and credit requirements for graduation

from high school, community relations, and the philosophy, goals, and objectives of public education in Virginia….

On June 27, 2013, the Board of Education approved a Notice of Intended Regulatory Action (NOIRA) for

amendments to the Regulations Establishing Standards for Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia, and, on

October 24, 2013, the Board approved amendments to the regulations (Proposed Stage) addressing

legislation from the 2012 and 2013 General Assembly, and one bill from 1999. However, on November 20,

2014, the Board withdrew the proposed regulations in favor of conducting a more comprehensive review in

2015.

While the Board of Education is conducting a comprehensive review of the Regulations Establishing

Standards for Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia (8 VAC 20-131), the Board is initiating this separate

fast track regulatory action for the sole purpose of addressing legislation that was approved by the General

Assembly during the 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 sessions, and one bill approved by the General Assembly

in 1999. The following such bills require changes to the Regulations Establishing the Standards for

Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia (Standards of Accreditation):

Volume 86

Page 98

June 2015

HB 642 and SB 514 (2012) add three points to the Graduation and Completion Index for each student

who earns a diploma and a CTE credential.

HB 1107 and SB 656 (2012) require local school boards to adopt and implement policies for the

possession and administration of epinephrine in every school.

SB 889 (1999) requires school boards to ensure that at least two employees have been trained in the

administration of insulin and glucagon in school buildings with an instructional and administrative staff

of ten or more, if one or more students diagnosed as having diabetes attend the school. When there are

fewer than ten such staff members, school boards shall ensure that at least one employee has been

trained if one or more students with diabetes attend the school.

HB 2028 and SB 986 (2013) require students, beginning with the ninth-grade class of 2016-2017, to be

trained in emergency first aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and the use of automated external

defibrillators to be awarded a Standard or an Advanced Studies Diploma.

HB 2344 (2013) requires each school to have a school threat assessment team. The threat assessment

teams shall provide guidance to students, faculty, and staff regarding recognition of threatening or

aberrant behavior that may represent a threat to the community.

HB 2346 (2013) requires at least two lockdown drills every year, one in September and one in January.

HB 1007 (2014) replaces references throughout the Code of Virginia to a General Educational

Development (GED) program or test with “a high school equivalency examination approved by the

Board of Education” or a “high school equivalency preparation program.”

SB 1236 (2015) eliminates the term “Special Diploma” and replaces it with the term “Applied Studies

Diploma.”

HB 1338 (2015) requires the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE), for the purposes of the School

Performance Report Card, to include, as part of instructional costs, each school division's expenditures

on the hardware necessary to support electronic textbooks.

HB 1351 and SB 916 (2015) direct the Board to establish criteria for awarding a diploma seal of

biliteracy and require the Board to establish criteria for awarding it in time for any student graduating

from a public high school in the Commonwealth in 2016 to be awarded such a diploma seal.

HB 1490 and SB 874 (2015) require the Board to promulgate regulations to provide the same criteria

for eligibility for an expedited retake of any Standards of Learning (SOL) test, with the exception of the

writing SOL tests, to each student regardless of grade level or course.

HB 1675 and SB 982 (2015) permit local school divisions to waive the requirement for students to

receive 140 clock hours of instruction to earn a standard unit of credit upon providing the Board with

satisfactory proof, based on Board guidelines, that the students for whom such requirements are waived

have learned the content and skills included in the relevant SOL.

HB 1873 and SB 1320 (2015) require the Board to amend the Standards of Accreditation by the 2016-

2017 school year to establish additional accreditation ratings that recognize the progress of schools and

student growth.

HB 2276 (2015) creates an alternative, under certain circumstances, to the current requirement that, in

order to receive a standard diploma, a student must earn a Career and Technical Education (CTE)

credential.

Volume 86

Page 99

June 2015

HB 2318 (2015) requires the Board, for the purposes of the Standards of Accreditation, to use a

graduation rate that excludes any student who fails to graduate because he or she is in the custody of the

Department of Corrections, the Department of Juvenile Justice, or local law enforcement. Note: This

bill will become effective on July 1, 2016.

The following sections of the SOA will be amended as described in the chart below:

Part Section Proposed Change

Part I: Definitions

and Purpose

8 VAC20-131-5

Page 2

The revision eliminates the term “Special Diploma” and replaces it with

the term “Applied Studies Diploma.” SB 1236 (2015).

Part II: Philosophy,

Goals, and Objectives

Part III: Student

Achievement

8 VAC 20-131-30

Page 6

The revision requires the Board to promulgate regulations to provide the

same criteria for eligibility for an expedited retake of any Standards of

Learning test, with the exception of the writing SOL tests, to each

student regardless of grade level or course. HB 1490 and SB 874 (2015).

8 VAC 20-131-50

Page 10

8 VAC 20-131-60

Page 12

Beginning with the ninth-grade class of 2016-2017, in order to be to be

awarded a Standard or an Advanced Studies Diploma, students are to be

trained in emergency first aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and the use

of automated external defibrillators. HB 2028 and SB 986 (2013).

8 VAC 20-131-50

Page 13

The amendment replaces the term General Educational Development

(GED) program or test with "a high school equivalency examination

approved by the Board of Education" or “a high school equivalency

preparation program.” HB 1007 (2014).

8 VAC 20-131-50

Page 14

The revision requires the Board to establish criteria for awarding a

diploma seal of biliteracy in time for any student graduating from a

public high school in 2016 to be awarded such a diploma seal. HB 1351

and SB 916 (2015).

8 VAC 20-131-50

Page 9-10

The revision creates an alternative when a Career and Technical

Education (CTE) credential in a particular subject area is not readily

available or appropriate or does not adequately measure student

competency. Under such circumstances, the student must receive

competency-based instruction in the subject area to satisfy the standard

diploma requirements. HB 2276 (2015).

8 VAC 20-131-50

Page 12

8 VAC 20-131-60

Page 16

The revision eliminates the term “Special Diploma” and replaces it with

the term “Applied Studies Diploma.” SB 1236 (2015).

Part IV: School

Instructional Program

8 VAC 20-131-100

Pages 22-23

The revision permits local school divisions to waive the requirement for

students to receive 140 clock hours of instruction to earn a standard unit

of credit upon providing the Board of Education with satisfactory proof,

based on Board guidelines, that the students for

whom such requirements are waived have learned the content and skills

included in the relevant Standards of Learning. HB 1675 and SB 982

(2015).

Part V: School and

Instructional

Leadership

Part VI: School

Facilities and Safety

8 VAC 20-131-260

Page 33

In school buildings with an instructional and administrative staff of 10 or

more, school boards shall ensure that at least three employees have

current certification or training in emergency first aid, cardiopulmonary

resuscitation (CPR), and the use of an automated external defibrillator

(AED). In school buildings with an instructional and administrative staff

of fewer than 10, school boards shall ensure that at least two employees

have current certification or training in emergency first aid, CPR, and the

use of an AED. HB 2028 and SB 986 (2013).

Volume 86

Page 100

June 2015

Part Section Proposed Change

8 VAC 20-131-260

Page 33

In school buildings with an instructional and administrative staff of 10 or

more, school boards shall ensure that at least two employees have been

trained in the administration of insulin and glucagon, if one or more

students diagnosed as having diabetes attend such school. In school

buildings with an instructional and administrative staff of fewer than 10,

school boards shall ensure that at least one employee has been trained in

the administration of insulin and glucagon if one or more students

diagnosed as having diabetes attend such school. SB 889 (1999).

8 VAC 20-131-260

Page 33

This revision will require local school boards to adopt and implement

policies for the possession and administration of epinephrine in every

school. HB 1107 and SB 656 (2012).

8 VAC 20-131-260

Page 32

This revision requires each school to have a school threat assessment

team. The threat assessment teams shall provide guidance to students,

faculty, and staff regarding recognition of threatening or aberrant

behavior that may represent a threat to the community. HB 2344 (2013).

8 VAC 20-131-260

Page 32

The amendment requires at least two lockdown drills every year, one in

September and one in January. HB 2346 (2013).

Part VII: School and

Community

Communications

8 VAC 20-131-260

Page 35

The amendment replaces the term General Educational Development

(GED) program or test with "a high school equivalency examination

approved by the Board of Education" or “a high school equivalency

preparation program.” HB 1007 (2014).

Part VIII: School

Accreditation

8 VAC 20-131-280

Page 36

The amendment replaces the term General Educational Development

(GED) program or test with "a high school equivalency examination

approved by the Board of Education" or “a high school equivalency

preparation program.” HB 1007 (2014).

8 VAC 20-131-280

Pages 36-37

This change will add three points to the Graduation and Completion

Index for each student who earns a diploma and a career and technical

education (CTE) credential. HB 642 and SB 514 (2012).

8 VAC 20-131-280

Page 37

The revision requires the Board of Education, for the purposes of the

Standards of Accreditation, to use a graduation rate that excludes any

student who fails to graduate because he or she is in the custody of the

Department of Corrections, the Department of Juvenile Justice, or local

law enforcement. Note: This requirement becomes effective on July 1,

2016. HB 2318 (2015).

8 VAC 20-131-300

Pages 41-45

The revision establishes additional accreditation ratings that recognize

the progress of schools and student growth. HB 1873 and SB 1320

(2015).

8 VAC 20-131-300

Page 50

This addition specifies that the effective date is July 1, 2016, for the

revision of the graduation rate formula described in 8VAC201-13-280.

The discussion included:

Dr. Braunlich noted that although the Board is conducting a comprehensive review of

the Regulations Establishing Standards for Accrediting Public School in Virginia, the

Board is initiating a separate fast track regulatory action for the sole purpose of

addressing legislation that was approved by the General Assembly during the 2012,

2013, 2014, and 2015 sessions, and one bill approved by the General Assembly in

1999.

Mrs. Atkinson summarized the discussion at the accountability committee meeting

June 24, 2015. She noted the following general concepts: to keep the fully accredited

label, highlight conditionally accredited new schools as a separate label, create a

partially accredited label with subsets to include graduation rate, approaching the

benchmark, improving schools, schools with warning, and reconstituted or reorganized

schools.

Volume 86

Page 101

June 2015

The Board received for first review the proposed revisions to the Regulations Establishing

Standards for Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia (Fast Track).

First Review of Revisions to the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and

Evaluation Criteria for Teachers, Principals, and Superintendents

Mrs. Patty Pitts, assistant superintendent, Division of Teacher Education and Licensure,

presented this item. Mrs. Pitts’ presentation included the following:

In response to the 1999 Education Accountability and Quality Enhancement Act (HB2710 and SB1145)

approved by the Virginia General Assembly, the Board of Education approved the Guidelines for Uniform

Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers Administrators, and Superintendents in

January 2000. The Guidelines were revised from 2011-2012 as shown below:

Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers

Approved by the Virginia Board of Education on April 28, 2011, effective July 1, 2012.

Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Principals

Approved by the Virginia Board of Education on February 23, 2012, effective July 1, 2013.

Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Superintendents

Approved by the Virginia Board of Education on September 27, 2012, effective July 1, 2014.

Section 22.1-253.13:5 (Standard 5. Quality of classroom instruction and educational leadership) of the

Code of Virginia requires that teacher, administrator, and superintendent evaluations must be consistent

with the performance objectives (standards) in the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and

Evaluation Criteria for Teachers, Administrators, and Superintendents and that student academic progress

must be a significant component of the summative rating. An excerpt from this section of the Code states,

in part, the following:

…B. Consistent with the finding that leadership is essential for the advancement of public education in the

Commonwealth, teacher, administrator, and superintendent evaluations shall be consistent with the

performance objectives included in the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation

Criteria for Teachers, Administrators, and Superintendents. Evaluations shall include student academic

progress as a significant component and an overall summative rating. Teacher evaluations shall include

regular observation and evidence that instruction is aligned with the school's curriculum. Evaluations shall

include identification of areas of individual strengths and weaknesses and recommendations for appropriate

professional activities….

On March 31, 2015, the U.S. Department of Education (USED) granted Virginia a four-year renewal of the

state’s ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind

Act of 2001) flexibility plan through the 2018-2019 school year. As part of that plan, Virginia

recommended replacing Student Growth Percentiles with value tables (progress tables) for use with

Virginia’s model evaluation systems, beginning in the 2015-2016 school year.

For the past several years, Virginia has used student growth percentiles (SGPs) as a measure of growth in

its model teacher and principal evaluation system. The SGPs measure growth by comparing individual

student performance to that of other students with similar score histories. Because of this comparison,

SGPs must be calculated each year, and the calculations cannot be prepared until all statewide data are

Volume 86

Page 102

June 2015

available. This requirement has resulted in growth information not being available to school divisions until

the early fall of the school year following test implementation. In addition, because SGPs provide a norm-

referenced measure of growth, teachers and students are not aware of the score required on the current

year’s test for students to be considered as having made growth during the school year. Finally, SGPs could

not be calculated for Virginia’s alternate assessments.

After researching other growth models, Virginia Department of Education staff has determined that value

(progress) tables would more accurately recognize success in closing the achievement gap than SGPs while

providing teachers and principals with growth data more representative of the students being taught in their

classroom and schools. The value (progress) table model, unlike the SGP model, is based solely on

individual student performance from one year to the next and accounts for each student who is closing the

achievement gap by moving one step closer to demonstrating proficiency of the state standards.

A description of the methodology used to establish Virginia’s value (progress) tables follows. Virginia’s

reading and mathematics assessments for grades 3-8 have four achievement levels: below basic, basic,

proficient and advanced. In the value (progress) table model, each of these achievement levels has been

divided into two sublevels using the empirical score distributions from the first year that these tests were

administered operationally. For example, the below basic achievement level is divided into “low below

basic” and “high below basic,” and the basic achievement level is divided into “low basic” and “high basic.”

The Value Table Model allows for the measurement of growth by evaluating the number of sublevels a

student moves from one year to the next on the state assessments. For example, a student whose score was

in the “low below basic” range on the grade 3 mathematics assessment in 2012-2013 and whose score was in

the “low basic” category on the grade 4 mathematics assessments in 2013-2014 has moved two levels.

Growth measures for teachers may be determined by evaluating the aggregate growth of the individual

students in the teacher’s class. Similarly, value (progress) tables may be used to derive growth measures for

principals by aggregating the growth demonstrated by students in the principal’s school.

Since the value table model is not dependent on students having “similar score histories,” the process by

which student growth is being measured will be easier to explain, and students and teachers will know in

advance what score on the current year’s test will be necessary for the student to demonstrate growth. In

addition, growth data from the value tables should be available soon after the student finishes testing rather

than waiting until all test data are available, as is the situation with SGPs. Lastly, this model can be applied

to the alternate tests that have been approved as part of Virginia’s assessment program as well as to the

Standards of Learning (SOL) tests taken by most students; thereby ensuring that a growth measure will be

available to additional students who take the state tests.

Value (progress) table data will be provided to school divisions by teacher for teacher evaluation and by

school for use in principal and superintendent evaluations.

The Board received for first review the proposed revisions to the Guidelines for Uniform

Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers, Principals, and Superintendents.

First Review of Nominations to Fill Vacancies on Board of Education Advisory Committees

Mrs. Melissa Luchau, director, Office of Board Relations, presented this item. Mrs. Luchau’s

presentation included the following:

Article Nine, Section 2 of the Board of Education’s bylaws states the following:

Section 2. Advisory Committees. Advisory committees may be created by the Board for special

purposes to include, but not be limited to, federal and state-mandated committees. An advisory committee shall be composed of

Volume 86

Page 103

June 2015

persons who represent the views and interests of the general public and who are known to be qualified to perform their duties.

Personnel of the Department of Education may be appointed to the committee, as members or as consultants. Unless otherwise

prescribed by state or federal law or regulations, all appointments to an advisory committee shall be made by the Board upon the

recommendations of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. . . .

The Board of Education’s bylaws also specify the membership and term of service in Article Sixteen,

Section 3 and 4, as follows:

Section 3. Membership. The Board shall determine the number of members to serve on an advisory committee, and shall

appoint the members of the committee, as specified in Board bylaws under Article Nine, Section 2, except as provided by state or

federal law or regulation. Nominations for all vacant positions will be solicited as widely as practicable and on forms provided by

the Department of Education. . . .

Section 4. Term of Service. Appointments to an advisory committee shall be for a term of three years. Members of an advisory

committee may be appointed to a second consecutive three-year term, but shall not be eligible to serve for more than six

consecutive years…A member filling the unexpired term of a member who resigned from the committee may be appointed to

another consecutive three-year term. . . .

The Board of Education has five advisory committees:

ABTEL – Advisory Board on Teacher Education and Licensure

VACEG – Virginia Advisory Committee for the Education of the Gifted

SSEAC – State Special Education Advisory Committee

Advisory Committee on Adult Education & Literacy

Advisory Committee for Career & Technical Education

The Board’s advisory committees have vacancies for three-year terms. Some of the Board's advisory

committees require specific categories of expertise or geographic representation pursuant to state or federal

law or regulation. For all committees, the Board of Education seeks to have geographic representation

among the appointees.

Superintendent’s Memorandum 079-15 dated April 3, 2015 announced the call for nominations to fill the

current advisory committee vacancies. Superintendent’s Memo 130-15 dated May 15, 2015 extended the

nomination period to June 5, 2015.

Following the close of the nomination period, the nominations were reviewed by Virginia Department of

Education staff. Persons recommended for appointment or reappointment are selected based upon

qualifications and on the required categories for membership (if applicable).

The terms will begin July 2015 and end June 2018 unless otherwise noted.

Dr. Baysal made a motion to waive first review and approve the recommended nominees to

fill vacancies on its advisory committees. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Atkinson and carried

unanimously.

The recommended nominees are as follows:

State Special Education Advisory Committee

Dr. Lisa Floyd, Deputy Director of Education, Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice

Representing: State Agency

Damon J. Garrison, Physical Education Teacher, Accomack County Public Schools; Parent

Representing: Parents, Region 2

Volume 86

Page 104

June 2015

Alison MacArthur, Teacher, James Wood Middle School, Frederick County Public Schools

Representing: Special Education Teachers (Reappointment)

Tashue Mason, Parent

Representing: Parents, Region 8

Lisa Richard, Parent Resource Coordinator, Bristol Public Schools; Parent

Representing: Parents, Region 7

Joan Sumner, Co-Chair Northumberland SEAC; Parent

Representing: Parents, Region 3

Jacquie Wilson, Parent

Representing: Parents, Region 5

(Reappointment)

Virginia Advisory Committee for Career and Technical Education

Tomeka Dowling, Assistant Professor, Bon Secours Memorial College of Nursing

Alecia Hamm, Teacher, Emergency Medical Technician Program, Madison County Public Schools

Drexel N. Harris, Educational Institutions Strategic Programs Project Director, Dominion Resources

S. Stewart Harris, Jr., Advanced Integrated Manufacturing Program Coordinator, Thomas Nelson Community

College

Pamela V. Heath, Superintendent, Martinsville City Public Schools

Suzanne Mallory-Parker, Associate Director of Education, Richmond CenterStage

Suzanne R. Robinson, MSN, RN, Education Coordinator, Chippenham and Johnston-Willis Hospitals

Virginia Advisory Committee for the Education of the Gifted

Sandra C. Cole, Retired Gifted Education Supervisor and Teacher, Buchanan County Public Schools

(Reappointment)

George Fohl, Jr., Science Teacher, Chesterfield County Public Schools

Patricia A. Griffin, Specialist, Gifted Education, Henrico County Public Schools (Reappointment)

Sarah Haywood, Gifted Education Coordinator, York County Public Schools

Laura C. Kelly, Supervisor of Gifted and Advanced Programs and RtI, Roanoke City Public Schools

Kirsten Maloney, Education Specialist, Advance Academic Programs, Fairfax County Public Schools

Valerie S. Tuck, Senior Coordinator for Academic Rigor, Norfolk Public Schools

Dornswalo Wilkins-McCorey, Gifted Instructional Specialist, Virginia Beach Public Schools

Advisory Board on Teacher Education and Licensure

Jeffrey Pennington, Teacher, Floyd County High School

Representing: Classroom Teacher (Secondary)

Volume 86

Page 105

June 2015

Dr. Diane Simon, Senior Associate Dean for Student Affairs, School of Education, Virginia Commonwealth

University

Representing: Higher Education (Public)

Cheryl Sprouse, Teacher, Bedford Middle School

Representing: Classroom Teacher (Middle)

(Reappointment)

Dr. Patricia Stohr-Hunt, Director of Teacher Education and Chair of Education, University of Richmond

Representing: Higher Education (Private)

*To fill unexpired term: 7/1/2013 – 6/30/2016

Joseph Whitmore, Teacher, St. Bridget School, Catholic Diocese of Richmond

Representing: Nonpublic School

Advisory Committee on Adult Education and Literacy

Maurice G. Oliver, Technology Implementation Specialist, Virginia Adult Learning Resource Center

(Reappointment)

Ellen Moore Osborne, Executive Director of Literacy Volunteers of Charlottesville / Albemarle

Katharine Parrish, Program Manager, Waynesboro City Public Schools (Reappointment)

Sharon W. Renner, Region 22, Adult Education Regional Specialist

Bruce Sobczak, Director of Workforce Development, Commonwealth Center for Advanced Manufacturing

Report on the High School Program Innovation Grant Process

Dr. Billy Haun, chief academic officer, Division of Instruction, presented this item. Dr.

Haun’s presentation included the following:

The 2015 Virginia General Assembly, in its effort to promote innovation in the Commonwealth’s public

high schools, provided funding for planning grants to be awarded for up to five pilot high school programs

to explore new approaches to engage and motivate students and increase readiness for postsecondary

education and training. The availability of this planning grant funding, along with the opportunity for

flexibility, or exemption, from certain administrative regulations, was intended a) to encourage new models

of high school organization and instruction; b) to identify promising practices for scaling across Virginia in

the future; and c) to inform future education policy.

The 2015 Appropriation Act, Item 135 Paragraph Z, provided the following direction to the Virginia

Department of Education in carrying out High School Program Innovation grants:

This appropriation includes $250,000 the second year from the general fund to support five competitive grants,

not to exceed $50,000 each, for planning the implementation of systemic High School Program Innovation by

either individual school division or consortium of school divisions. The local applicant(s) selected to conduct

this systemic approach to high school reform, in consultation with the Department of Education, will develop

and plan innovative approaches to engage and to motivate students through personalized learning and

instruction leading to demonstrated mastery of content, as well as skills development of career readiness.

Essential elements of high school innovation include: (1) student centered learning, with progress based on

student demonstrated proficiency; (2) 'real-world' connections that promote alignment with community work-

force needs and emphasize transition to college and/or career; and (3) varying models for educator supports

and staffing. Individual school divisions or consortia will be invited to apply on a competitive basis by

submitting a grant application that includes descriptions of key elements of innovations, a detailed budget,

Volume 86

Page 106

June 2015

expectations for outcomes and student achievement benefits, evaluation methods, and plans for sustainability.

The Department of Education will make the final determination of which school divisions or consortia of

divisions will receive the year-long planning grant for High School Innovation. Any school division or

consortium of divisions which desires to apply for this competitive grant must submit a proposal to the

Department of Education by June 1 preceding the school year in which the planning for systemic high school

innovation is to take place.

On March 27, 2015, the Virginia Department of Education issued Superintendent’s Memorandum Number

066-15 that announced the High School Program Innovation (HSPI) grant program. As defined in the 2015

Appropriation Act, up to five proposals not to exceed $50,000 each would be awarded to school divisions to

develop detailed implementation plans for their innovative high school programs. The planning grant year

will run from the time of award, July 2015, until June 30, 2016. Program implementation is expected for

two years beginning with the 2016-2017 school year.

Proposals were required to: a) describe plans for “out-of-the-box” and innovative thinking; and b) represent

substantively new approaches to high school programs. An “edited version” of current, standard, high

school models was expressly not the intent of the planning grant. As such, it was expected that awarded

school divisions would seek waivers from certain state regulations to carry out the targeted innovative

practices. The areas for innovative programming defined in the 2015 Appropriation Act language include:

Student centered learning, with progress based on student demonstrated proficiency

‘Real-world' connections that promote alignment with community work-force needs and emphasize

transition to college and/or career

Varying models for educator supports and staffing

In accordance with the language of the 2015 Appropriation Act, proposals were submitted to the Department

on June 1, 2015. Twenty proposals were received by the deadline. Proposals were evaluated, and five

awards were announced, effective July 1, 2015.

The following lead school divisions and projects were awarded HSPI funding in the amount of $50,000:

Chesterfield County Public Schools (10 divisions from Region 1)

Fairfax County Public Schools

Newport News City Public Schools

Salem City Public Schools

Williamsburg-James City County Public Schools

Awarded school divisions’ implementation planning for the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years is

required to be completed and approved by local school boards by April 2016. It is further anticipated that

the five project teams will present their implementation plans and requests for waivers to the Virginia Board

of Education at its April 2016 meeting and prior to proceeding with the first year of implementation, school

year 2016-2017. The Board may desire to have an earlier progress report from school divisions as each

prepares its HSPI implementation planning and waiver requests.

The discussion included:

Dr. Staples thanked Dr. Haun and the entire team that worked on the High School

Program Innovation (HSPI) planning grant particularly Eric Rhoades and Jim

Firebaugh in the Office of Science and Health Education. Dr. Staples said staff will

keep the Board informed and will give another presentation at the April 2016 meeting

for the Board to review requests for waivers that result from the HSPI planning grant.

Mrs. Atkinson said the waiver requests that result from the HSPI planning grant will

inform the Board of things school divisions want to do but are unable to do and will

assist the Board in creating more flexibility for localities.

Volume 86

Page 107

June 2015

Mr. Braunlich said he agreed with Mrs. Atkinson that the waiver requests will be

helpful to the Board.

Dr. Cannaday suggested a Board work session in the fall as opposed to waiting until

April 2016 to get a preliminary report on the HSPI planning grant.

Mrs. Lodal encouraged school divisions that submitted proposals that were not

accepted to continue to look at other places for resources. Mrs. Lodal asked staff to

encourage those schools to give feedback on lessons learned, the pitfalls they are up

against, and to share what’s going on with other school divisions.

Mrs. Wodiska emphasized that a lesson learned is of value no matter how one gets

there and encouraged school divisions to share information.

Dr. Baysal congratulated the department for their work on the planning grants and the

General Assembly for providing funding. Dr. Baysal asked how to get local school

boards involved. Dr. Haun clarified that school divisions had to get approval from

local school boards to submit applications for the planning grants.

Mr. Braunlich thanked the General Assembly for providing funding for the planning

grants.

The Board received the report on the High School Program Innovation grant process.

DISCUSSION OF CURRENT ISSUES

Mrs. Wodiska is a member of Virginia Nutrition Divide Council and gave a brief update from

the June 3rd meeting. Information on the Virginia Nutrition Divide Council can be found at:

https://governor.virginia.gov/media/3456/eo-34-bridging-the-nutritional-divide.pdf

The Board met for a public dinner on Wednesday, June 24, 2015, at the Crowne Plaza

Richmond Downtown Hotel, with the following members present: Mrs. Atkinson, Dr. Baysal,

Mr. Braunlich, Dr. Cannaday, Mr. Dillard, Mrs. Lodal, Mr. Romero, and Mrs. Wodiska. Dr.

Lorraine Lange, whose term will begin July 1, also attended. The following department staff also

attended: Dr. Steven Staples, superintendent of public instruction, and Melissa Luchau, director

of board relations. Members discussed pending Board agenda items. No votes were taken, and

the dinner meeting ended at 8 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE BUSINESS SESSION

There being no further business of the Board of Education and Board of Career and

Technical Education, Mr. Braunlich adjourned the meeting at 11:37 a.m.

_________________________________________

President